The Social Context of Recovery

Abstract

The findings of Stein et al.’s two-month longitudinal study regarding reactions, impairment and help-seeking following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, compel further exploration of the ways in which communal social functioning and individual social networking may serve either to reintegrate and reconnect community members or to pose complex challenges to the recovery process. Our commentary reflects our experience providing crisis intervention and disaster mental health services in the District of Columbia in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001, the anthrax contaminations of October, 2001, and the sniper shootings of October, 2002. For the District of Columbia, the impact of these tragedies must be considered in a social context whose characteristics include vast economic and educational disparity and chronic neighborhood violence. Social capital theory describes the phenomenon of bonding of like groups—social bonding that occurs at the family, neighborhood, and close friend level and among people who share demographic characteristics (Cullen and Whiteford 2001). These likenesses may create an “affinity group,” which we define as the phenomenon in which commonalities afford a mutually felt sense of belonging and may inform the interpretation of events for those within the group. Social capital theory also posits that bonding networks are key in information dissemination and the establishment of social and cultural norms. Thus, the concepts of bonding and affinity are determinants of trust that suggest mechanisms that should not be overlooked by preparedness planners and in the crafting of recovery interventions. With initial evidence of substantial distress in the New York City area following the September 11th attacks, Wave 2 of Stein et al.’s study (60-days post-event) found acute and localized distress to have substantially abated and to have become more evenly distributed across both rural and urban regions of the country. This study lends credibility to evidence of what the field has broadly termed the “new normal.” While initial shock and distress levels have subsided, there remains persistent, widespread distress that, while not diagnostically significant, is significant in terms of social functioning and adaptation (North and Pfefferbaum 2002). Psychiatry 67(2) Summer 2004 158